Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

Police say the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault.

However, because Rowles was believed to be under the influence of marijuana, Washington State law says he is technically at fault, according to police.It's a shame what happened here. The 'victim' lunges out into traffic and an unwitting driver slams into him. Because of something the driver had been doing an hour beforehand, he's now going to jail and will have this stain on his record follow him forever.

Pocket Ninja:Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

I can't believe that states are legalizing this drug when we still don't know all of these different things about it and what it can do.

namatad:no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.

What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.

regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.

AverageAmericanGuy:Police say the victim was close to two different lit and controlled intersections, but chose to step out into the middle of traffic, which would clearly put him at fault.

However, because Rowles was believed to be under the influence of marijuana, Washington State law says he is technically at fault, according to police.It's a shame what happened here. The 'victim' lunges out into traffic and an unwitting driver slams into him. Because of something the driver had been doing an hour beforehand, he's now going to jail and will have this stain on his record follow him forever.

The logic is that a non-intoxicated driver would be able to react well enough to swerve or stop and not hit the pedestrian.

legendary:And how many alcohol related DUI deaths were there in Washington State yesterday?

The funny thing is is that many (most?) states will consider an "alcohol related traffic accident" to be anything that can even remotely involve booze. Passenger drunk? Alcohol-related. Sealed wine bottle in your trunk? Alcohol related. Wearing a t-shirt from your favorite brewery? Alcohol related. Mostly it's to get federal grants.

nmrsnr:namatad: no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.

What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.

regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.

THISI agree. The pedestrian always has the right of way. SORT OF.Limited access roads are the exception. Dumbasses get killed crossing Lake Shore Drive all the time.Hello. It is 40mph and every speeds. No or few stop lights. ZERO pedestrian crossing, except for a few spots downtown. And yet tards trying to get to the beach get killed every year.

In the end, drunk or sober, you should never be required to avoid people in the middle of a major street.With video and time of day, day light, traffic conditions and more, we could better determine who was mostly at fault.

but the bullshiat idea that one is 100% to blame in this case is silly.if the driver had be STONE sober and the best driver in the universe, could he have avoid the tard in the road? Because if not, why is this moron getting nailed.

NOWthat being said, should be nailed for driving under the influence ... nothing more

Pocket Ninja:Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

nmrsnr:namatad: no error, the guy committed suicide by walking out into traffic.

What I learned in traffic school is that (at least in MD) the police almost never blame the pedestrian for getting hit, so unless the guy is wearing a sign saying "please hit me" while yelling "goodbye, cruel world" in front of a dozen witnesses, the police will write it up as "pedestrian error" so that no one is at fault. That's why I put it in quotes.

regardless, it doesn't seem like the kid would have done any better. Still, don't drive stoned.

I was in a crowded parking lot yesterday and this old woman was crossing one of the rows ever so slowly, going diagonally instead of straight across, so she was in the middle for a long time. I pulled into that row to get a spot and when I stopped to let her pass (SLOWLY) she scowled and started swearing up a storm at me. I wanted to yell "GET OUT OF THE ROAD YOU OLD BAT!" but I just laughed my ass off because it was so farking random. I think that made her even madder.

Ok, look, I have worked a couple accidents (as a paramedic) that were, in my mind, caused by someone smoking and not giving it time to wear off before getting behind the wheel. Yes, it can and does effect your response time while high. No, you do not drive better high because you're "more cautious" or "more relaxed." The effects are a hell of a lot less in duration than alcohol, and a lot more mellow, but it's still an intoxication.

That said, this guy by all accounts wasn't high at the time. It sounds like, at least from what I've heard, that he gave himself ample time to sober up, and it was in his system fairly incidentally. The person stepped off the curb at the last second, and very few people if any would have been likely able to miss them under those circumstances.

There is no excuse for driving while high or drunk, no matter the reason. And if this guy was actually high, then he should be on the hook for it. But the pedestrian was kind of an idiot, and even a stone sober person would have been hard pressed to avoid them.

Shadowknight:Ok, look, I have worked a couple accidents (as a paramedic) that were, in my mind, caused by someone smoking and not giving it time to wear off before getting behind the wheel.

Now while I think marijuana driving laws need to be judged differently than drunk driving laws, I agree that there are some people who get out on the road that are blitzed and just can't drive. They deserved to be charged with DUI, because they are dangerous as they are on the road.

My problem is, for every accident caused largely "because" of marijuana intoxication, there are probably ten or more accidents on the road, severe or not, caused simply by age and degeneration in reaction time, sight, and so forth. Yet, for some reason, unless an elderly person runs down a huge crowd of people and tries to drive away, they "get away" with their actions (an acquaintance died in such fashion, and the millionaire driver of the car that drove across the highway for no known reason received a $650 fine). Honestly, I'd personally be more afraid of the 60-year-old driving certain roads at night than I would be the guy who's way too baked, and that's not because I think 1970s Cheech is more "in tune" with the highway than 2012s Cheech. Heck, lots of idiots get in wrecks because they were checking out a pretty girl or changing the radio, yet they only get a small fine, at most. Sometimes people who have taken too many prescription drugs are arrested, but sometimes not the case.

I'm not trying to defend driving while high... I'm trying to point out the other issues that are largely ignored by politicians, probably because they know who the voters tend to be.

And, really, I don't see how the lady who almost hit me the other day shouldn't have been charged with a crime (she'd have simply received a minor citation if an officer had seen it), regardless of her sobriety. Mistakes happen, and sometimes the human eye can play tricks on us and we literally miss something right in front of us, but there's no excuse for making a sudden lane change without so much as looking at the lane into which you're attempting to maneuver. In reality, she should have seen me in her peripheral vision, as I saw her as she was changing lanes (so I swerved to the side of the road). Again, perhaps age played a role, or the conversation she was having with her passenger, who knows...

It's the victim's fault for walking out into traffic, but that does not negate the fact that the driver was committing his own crime by driving under the influence. If pot heads want to prove that the drug is harmless, then they need to step up and know when it's time to blaze and when it's not.

Is this the thread where most of Fark reverses their thoughts on DUI (involving alcohol) and starts blaming the "victim" if the DUI involves marijuana?

I've been mercilessly flamed for saying I sometimes drive after a few beers and while I have never advocated doing so or claimed it makes me a better driver I do say you should follow traffic laws like staying within the speed limit, stopping when required to do so, maintaining a lane, etc....

But none of that really matters to a lot of folks. Ooooh, you drove after drinking (regardless of actual BAC). I'm worse than farking Hitler they tell me.

But now that a person who had smoked pot kills a pedestrian, it's suddenly not his fault?

Hey, from the article it sounds like the pedestrian stepped in front of the guy's car and there wasn't time to react - hard to tell though. Even sober people (sober of any substance and also paying attention) might not have been able to avoid the pedestrian.

But if he had been drinking and was just barely touching the limit for drunk driving many people on Fark would be calling for the death penalty.

/yes, I'm drunk right now//no, I'm not planning on driving until at least Thursday

Pocket Ninja:Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

Wolf892:It's the victim's fault for walking out into traffic, but that does not negate the fact that the driver was committing his own crime by driving under the influence. If pot heads want to prove that the drug is harmless, then they need to step up and know when it's time to blaze and when it's not.

The problem being, of course, that there isn't really an objective way to measure or test whether a person is high at a given point in time

BSABSVR:legendary: And how many alcohol related DUI deaths were there in Washington State yesterday?

The funny thing is is that many (most?) states will consider an "alcohol related traffic accident" to be anything that can even remotely involve booze. Passenger drunk? Alcohol-related. Sealed wine bottle in your trunk? Alcohol related. Wearing a t-shirt from your favorite brewery? Alcohol related. Mostly it's to get federal grants.

Salt Lick Steady:Wolf892: It's the victim's fault for walking out into traffic, but that does not negate the fact that the driver was committing his own crime by driving under the influence. If pot heads want to prove that the drug is harmless, then they need to step up and know when it's time to blaze and when it's not.

The problem being, of course, that there isn't really an objective way to measure or test whether a person is high at a given point in time

Ah, but there are just as objective ways to measure if a person is too high to drive as there are for being too drunk.

There are actually tests to measure levels of THC in your blood (not just whether there are metabolites of THC in your piss 3 weeks after you last used pot). There is some debate as to what an acceptable level is just as some people argue about whether 0.05 (or 0.08) BAC is too much or too little for a person to drive.

Whatever that legal BAC limit is though (or how many nanograms per milliliter of THC (or however it's measured)), it's still a somewhat arbitrary limit.

There are also field sobriety tests and it is fairly obvious when someone fails them completely or aces them.

It becomes difficult and very subjective when someone just does "okay" on an FST. Okay, so they couldn't stand on one leg with their eyes closed and touch their nose while estimating 30 seconds. They lost their balance at 20 seconds and thought only 15 seconds had passed. Hey, put them in jail for 5 years!!!!

"What? Only 5 years?" other people will say? They should go to prison for life! They could have killed someone!!111!!!! Th1mk uv the chilluns!

1. "Marijuana became legal last week, so people are smoking it and driving stoned, having accidents."

2. "That never happened before, because nobody ever smoked marijuana and drove a car when it was illegal."

Yeah sure. Tell me all about it.

Its the same abuse of logic that lead to prohibition.Angry men get drunk and beat their wives. If we get rid of the booze, the wife beating will stop.

/The fact they banned weed in the first place suggests that the proper use of statistics was never a part of the argument./Always emotion, political hackery is.

Cannabis was banned because some very rich, very influential people didn't want hemp threatening the paper industry. So they gave it a scary, foreign name ('marijuana'), and made up all sorts of myths about it. And the politicians and the public fell for it, hook line and sinker.

alienated:Pocket Ninja: Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

GameSprocket:alienated: Pocket Ninja: Smoke from marijuana (aka reefer, aka pot, aka green) has a profound secondhand effect, though. If the driver was smoking reefer in his car, then the smoke might have permeated the windows and ensued into the surrounding air, which could have caused the equivalent of contact highs to innocent pedestrians within a certain definable parameter. Perimeter. Said pedestrians may have then become lethargic and uncoordinated and without being fully cognizant of their bodily actions undertaken such activities like, such as, stepping into traffic and/or becoming vehicular casualties. I know it will not be popular to suggest that side effects from ganja in a legalized locality may include bystander deaths, but it's time to be honest.

3/10

I found the Russian judge!

agreed. While not top ten material, PockeyGanja did a respectable job, there.

Salt Lick Steady:The problem being, of course, that there isn't really an objective way to measure or test whether a person is high at a given point in time

Which has always been my biggest problem with legalizing it. It disgusts me to see so many people trying to pin all of the blame on the victim when the police apparently had enough evidence to arrest the guy for DUI. If this had been booze the lynching party would be going full swing by now. I hope that they throw the book at him as an example of what happens to you when you drive stoned.